Meanwhile NASA GISS scientist Lacis, who was highly critical of the chapter 9 executive summary draft says that:
I am actually encouraged by the all criticisms that the IPCC AR4 report is receiving.
He makes some valid points and provides insight into the review process. More in comments at Andrew Revkin’s NYT Dot Earth blog here
From the Australian, news on that IPCC “overhaul” in Nature:
Scientists say IPCC should be overhauled or scrapped
INTERNATIONAL scientists have called for the world’s peak climate change body to be revamped or scrapped after damaging controversies that have dogged the expert panel in recent months.
The scientists suggest a range of options, from tightening the selection of lead authors and contributors to the International Panel on Climate Change, to dumping it in favour of a small permanent body, or even turning the whole climate science assessment process into a moderated “living” Wikipedia-IPCC.
Writing today in the journal Nature, five US, British, German and Swiss climate scientists – all contributing or lead IPCC report authors – agreed a mechanism for assessing the facts and impacts of climate change was critical.
But they acknowledged that calls for reform had intensified after what Nature called “recent furores”. Last month, for instance, it was revealed that flawed communication between teams of scientists led to the IPCC’s inaccurate claim that most Himalayan glaciers would melt almost 300 years earlier than forecast. In November, the release of hacked email messages between climate scientists triggered widespread media reports of scientific wrongdoing.
According to Mike Hulme, from Britain’s University of East Anglia, the structure and process of the IPCC has passed its sell-by date. “The IPCC is no longer fit for the purpose,” he wrote in Nature.
In Australia, Barry Brook, the director of climate change research at Adelaide University, agreed, saying: “I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,” he said.
Full story at the Australian here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
However, and let’s dig deeper, their masters or patrons do not either drink, nor inhale, they, instead live austere lives,
Can’t say more.They are just a few, less than ten people perhaps.
“the structure and process of the IPCC has passed its sell-by date.”
It was putrid from the get-go, with only the heavy aroma of pseudo-science to keep people from realizing how bad it was.
It needed to be scrapped yesterday.
We’re in the middle of the wake, we haven’t buried the these poor IPCC folks yet. Let’s finish our drinks, get a good night’s sleep, go to the funeral, bury their wothless corpses, get over our loss by a short time of mourning –perhaps 10-20 years– and then talk about it. The world has had a great loss. We should not fly off the handle in our present condition and do anything rash. Now, where were we… oh yes… Barkeep! Another Ortleib bitte bitte… (snif)… they was such ‘fine’ fellas too.. (snif) from India, and the UK, and the US, and… (snif)… never really knew them personally… understand they wrote detective thrillers or something and loved to bask in the Sun… (snif)… Barkeep! Another Ortleib…. did you have any trouble getting here? That snow must be five feet deep…
What did really bother us of this IPCC thing?, I think it was their restore to silly lies to get their agenda, they could have used instead (well, if they were really scientists) the more scaring material, just from here in WUWT…all that stuff of Sun turning from a nice incandescent warm yellow light shining above to a ecologically friendly sun, just cool, Ap numbers down to the ground, lowering magnetic earth shield, increasing Oulu neutron counts rising to the top and never going down…the cosine and sine curves from Vuk…oh, such a lot of themes.
There was enough scary material for two IPCC and many soap operas and they preferred the global warming tale. Poor guys, what a lack of imagination!!!
Oops>resort instead of restor
“I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers,” he said.
Yeh, that’s the ticket. Just make sure it’s robust./sarc
What is not being discussed here is that there is also, in addition to the ‘Opinion’ piece, a full length article by many academics across Europe and the US about ‘next generation models’.
This would imply that full-steam-ahead modelling will continue, with attempts to push out ‘beyond 2100’.
The article has one rather interesting quote:
‘Although the IPCC scenarios and process were productiwe, new scenarios and a new process for selecting and using them are needed. Nearly a decade of new economic data, information about emerging technologies and obserwations of enwironmental factors such as land use and land cower change should be reflected in new scenarios’.
That says to me that the fundamental paradigms of the modelling will remain the same.
With the lack of congruence of current models to 1998 climate onwards, isn’t that rather a strange starting point to be taking??
Rhys Jaggar (10:49:22) :
What is not being discussed here is that there is also, in addition to the ‘Opinion’ piece, a full length article by many academics across Europe and the US about ‘next generation models’
That would mean a challenge target for viruses’ programmers. That will benefit the whole world. DO IT!, such a good action would compensate for all your past deeds.
“I wouldn’t be disturbed if there wasn’t ever another IPCC report, provided we replaced it with something more timely, concise and relevant to policy makers.”
Another confused scientist that thinks his recommendations equate to anything resembling Science or honesty.
Can’t believe that Nature, that premier bastion of the green revolution and bad science is calling time on the IPCC fraudsters…
Pot. kettle spring to mind.
Joe.
Thanks for info re oceans. Very interesting.
Oliver Ramsay.
The energy of motion becomes part of the mass of the thing moved.
E = Mc(squared). The increase in the mass of the thing moved is minuscule since, by re-arranging the equation,
M = E/c2, the energy, E, has to be divided by a very, very big number.
The energy of motion becomes part of the mass of the thing moved.
E = Mc(squared). The increase in the mass of the thing moved is minuscule since, by re-arranging the equation,
M = E/c2, the energy, E, has to be divided by a very, very big number>
Impossible. All energy relationships are strictly linear. Ask any climatologist if you don’t believe me.
Re davidmhoffeer.
You may well be right about ‘energy relationships’ – I am not sure what you mean by that phrase. As I understand nature, Force = acceleration, which is non-linear unless you create a graph which specially designed to make the non-linear linear.